It all depends on why we close questions. The usual reason is to keep the quality of the question queue high. None of us wants to see the same uniformed questions asked over and over by hit-and-run askers who can't be bothered to read the FAQ or search for similar questions. Nor do we want to have lots of people wast their time on poorly specified questions or see spews of answers to trolling questions.

However, there is a nugget of truth in the old chestnut, "There are no bad questions." I've always understood it to mean "Don't let the mechanics of phrasing a question stifle your curiosity." To me, the current "close" mechanism turns that concept on its head. If there's any curiosity behind a close-worthy question, it's squashed as comments, votes and pre-close answers turn against it. The less technical the site, the more jarring the "close" process is likely to seem.

I think changing terminology could help. Encouraging constructive comments would be good too. And the message on a closed question could probably use work.

On the technical side, introducing a "soft-close" (which might replace the current close) could do the trick. In retail, some stores don't close abruptly at the end of the day, but rather close the doors to new customers while letting current customers finish their shopping. It gets the job of closing the store done without customers feeling hurried. A soft close on StackExchange could mean that people already involved with a question (by commenting or answering) can still provide answers, but people who have not participated before closing time are locked out. The upshot is that the asker loses the wide field of experts by asking bad questions, but still has a chance of having their curiosity satisfied.

Perhaps users with high enough reputation could answer questions even if they haven't participated. Presumably, they will be able to give good answers to even bad questions. In fact, a more complicated system might be for each "close" vote to ratchet up the reputation needed to answer (or even see) the question. This would turn the binary "close" or "open" into a sliding scale of "closedness".

The technical suggestions are bound to have unforeseen consequences, so I reserve my right to oppose them in the future. ;-)

It all depends on why we close questions. The usual reason is to keep the quality of the question queue high. None of us wants to see the same uniformed questions asked over and over by hit-and-run askers who can't be bothered to read the FAQ or search for similar questions. Nor do we want to have lots of people wast their time on poorly specified questions or see spews of answers to trolling questions.

However, there is a nugget of truth in the old chestnut, "There are no bad questions." I've always understood it to mean "Don't let the mechanics of phrasing a question stifle your curiosity." To me, the current "close" mechanism turns that concept on its head. If there's any curiosity behind a close-worthy question, it's squashed as comments, votes and pre-close answers turn against it. The less technical the site, the more jarring the "close" process is likely to seem.

I think changing terminology could help. Encouraging constructive comments would be good too. And the message on a closed question could probably use work.

On the technical side, introducing a "soft-close" (which might replace the current close) could do the trick. In retail, some stores don't close abruptly at the end of the day, but rather close the doors to new customers while letting current customers finish their shopping. It gets the job of closing the store done without customers feeling hurried. A soft close on StackExchange could mean that people already involved with a question (by commenting or answering) can still provide answers, but people who have not participated before closing time are locked out. The upshot is that the asker loses the wide field of experts by asking bad questions, but still has a chance of having their curiosity satisfied.

Perhaps users with high enough reputation could answer questions even if they haven't participated. Presumably, they will be able to give good answers to even bad questions. In fact, a more complicated system might be for each "close" vote to ratchet up the reputation needed to answer (or even see) the question. This would turn the binary "close" or "open" into a sliding scale of "closedness".

The technical suggestions are bound to have unforeseen consequences, so I reserve my right to oppose them in the future. ;-)

It all depends on why we close questions. The usual reason is to keep the quality of the question queue high. None of us wants to see the same uniformed questions asked over and over by hit-and-run askers who can't be bothered to read the FAQ or search for similar questions. Nor do we want to have lots of people wast their time on poorly specified questions or see spews of answers to trolling questions.

However, there is a nugget of truth in the old chestnut, "There are no bad questions." I've always understood it to mean "Don't let the mechanics of phrasing a question stifle your curiosity." To me, the current "close" mechanism turns that concept on its head. If there's any curiosity behind a close-worthy question, it's squashed as comments, votes and pre-close answers turn against it. The less technical the site, the more jarring the "close" process is likely to seem.

I think changing terminology could help. Encouraging constructive comments would be good too. And the message on a closed question could probably use work.

On the technical side, introducing a "soft-close" (which might replace the current close) could do the trick. In retail, some stores don't close abruptly at the end of the day, but rather close the doors to new customers while letting current customers finish their shopping. It gets the job of closing the store done without customers feeling hurried. A soft close on StackExchange could mean that people already involved with a question (by commenting or answering) can still provide answers, but people who have not participated before closing time are locked out. The upshot is that the asker loses the wide field of experts by asking bad questions, but still has a chance of having their curiosity satisfied.

Perhaps users with high enough reputation could answer questions even if they haven't participated. Presumably, they will be able to give good answers to even bad questions. In fact, a more complicated system might be for each "close" vote to ratchet up the reputation needed to answer (or even see) the question. This would turn the binary "close" or "open" into a sliding scale of "closedness".

The technical suggestions are bound to have unforeseen consequences, so I reserve my right to oppose them in the future. ;-)

It all depends on why we close questions. The usual reason is to keep the quality of the question queue high. None of us wants to see the same uniformed questions asked over and over by hit-and-run askers who can't be bothered to read the FAQ or search for similar questions. Nor do we want to have lots of people wast their time on poorly specified questions or see spews of answers to trolling questions.

However, there is a nugget of truth in the old chestnut, "There are no bad questions." I've always understood it to mean "Don't let the mechanics of phrasing a question stifle your curiosity." To me, the current "close" mechanism turns that concept on its head. If there's any curiosity behind a close-worthy question, it's squashed as comments, votes and pre-close answers turn against it. The less technical the site, the more jarring the "close" process is likely to seem.

I think changing terminology could help. Encouraging constructive comments would be good too. And the message on a closed question could probably use work.

On the technical side, introducing a "soft-close" (which might replace the current close) could do the trick. In retail, some stores don't close abruptly at the end of the day, but rather close the doors to new customers while letting current customers finish their shopping. It gets the job of closing the store done without customers feeling hurried. A soft close on StackExchange could mean that people already involved with a question (by commenting or answering) can still provide answers, but people who have not participated before closing time are locked out. The upshot is that the asker loses the wide field of experts by asking bad questions, but still has a chance of having their curiosity satisfied.

Perhaps users with high enough reputation could answer questions even if they haven't participated. Presumably, they will be able to give good answers to even bad questions. In fact, a more complicated system might be for each "close" vote to ratchet up the reputation needed to answer (or even see) the question. This would turn the binary "close" or "open" into a sliding scale of "closedness".

The technical suggestions are bound to have unforeseen consequences, so I reserve my right to oppose them in the future. ;-)